50 Cent feuds with Kanye, further proves to be absolute dipshit

</tongue in hypocritical cheek>

???

Yeah i call b.s.

It's no easy feat making Kanye West seem humble, but somehow 50 Cent has managed it.

"The New Orleans disaster was meant to happen....

Oh dear.

I suddenly think of Chuck Klosterman. Don't ask me why. I think I'm going kookoo but I think one of his articles focused on that Lakers vs Celtics divide? Never mind, you didn't heat me, move along. Bye!

I just learnt that on the History Channel. Most of them are black. I wonder what they think about this feud? They probably don't care.

an ill-fated attempt to stir up controversy? pretty much says it all right there.

"What Kanye West was saying, I don't know where that came from."

Watch out, Kanye! You said something and then 50 Cent was all like "yeah, I don't really know about that!"

But wait, this is a long-running feud: apparently 50 also has a theory about how other people's success all relates to him and how important he is! That's even more threatening than when Chubby Checker was going around saying he invented dancing! Or when Vince Neil or whoever said grunge was responsible for killing hair-metal, and then he went out and shot Kurt Cobain over it! Beef beef beef!

Christ: is the AP doing publicity for 50's movie, and just leaning on some really shitty "RAPPUHS FIGHT MAYBE KANYE SHOOT 50" bullshit?

"if i give dem some bling, i don't got enough for my 10th hummer"

wtf lol welcome to one month ago but yr still wrong!

my quoting jay-z is more a reflection of my belief that jigga still outshines fifty.

CURTIS '50 CENT' JACKSON, ACTOR/ RAPPER PORTRAYS
'MARCUS' IN FILM, SAYING: "There is a lot of pressure on (U.S. President George W.) Bush as president of our country. A lot of things going on, this doesn't happen so often all the things that have happened under his presidency. (Reporter: You were both born on the same day?) Yes we were, and we are both gangsters. "

"There's no point in throwing out facts that I can prove." - Kanye West, in reference to his belief that the Government created Aids to kill black people in Africa.

I guess there is no point in throwing out facts if you don't want to be taken seriously, and are just pandering to naive emotionalists who disregard reasoning and favor rhetoric.

The lack of reasoning behind everything he said is what was illogical about it. Logic IS reasoning. Not only were his conclusions not backed up with any premises at all, but his conclusions were false. Sure, there were two different captions that said one thing about a black family and one thing about a white family, but to say that it was orchestrated that way or even a subconcious slip of rascism would be false. They were from two different sources. That's called a coincedence, and is the simplest and most probable explanation for the occurence. If a rational person can't find the remote, he would probably assume that it's underneath a sofa cushion or the like. An irrational person disfavors simple explanations for things, and usually seeks to find a complex and grand conspiracy behinds things that can usually simply be explained. Kanye is an irrational person (or at least he was for the few minutes he was on the telethon).

"We already realized a lot of the people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way, and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us."

This statement doesn't hold up as well. There were some National Guard serving in Iraq, but there is no report AT ALL of those in the U.S. shooting those they were sent to assist. The National Guard were there to do good and try to protect people. But, once again, Kanye favors over exegerration. Pure rhetoric.

As far as the whole George Bush doesn't care about black people, I don't even think I have to waste my time commenting on that. It's no different than saying "Liberals hates America". It's an appeal to emotion that satisfies people with predetermined beliefs. It's just giving certain dumbass people what they want to hear. It, in no way, is meant to make a serious case for anything. It's just a stupid soundbite.

I like his music alright, but he keeps proving time and time again that he's not the sharpest knife in the kitchen.

That's called a coincedence, and is the simplest and most probable explanation for the occurence.

Is it a 'coincidence' that so many people assumed that race was a reason those captions were different? Is it possible that, you know, maybe there is a back story to people being sensitive to that sort of thing in this country? Did you honestly not see imbalance in the coverage of people in New Orleans?

I can't believe we're still having this conversation but I don't see what was illogical or irrational about what Kanye said. He's speaking what a lot of people, including myself, believe, and it doesn't have shit to do with him disregarding 'the truth' as you see it.

The National Guard were there to do good and try to protect people. But, once again, Kanye favors over exegerration. Pure rhetoric.

I assume you mean NO not Iraq, but how do you know what happened there? How do you know that they were just 'protecting' people and how do you know who they protected? From what I understand the governor explicitly said that people looting would be stopped by the national guard - although the REASONS for the looting were not clarified, i.e. we're starving and need food.

You're looking for Noam Chomsky?

1. The poor were the most affected by the hurricane due to lack of funds, transportation, communication, etc
2. The majority of poor people inside New Orleans were/are black.
3. There was a public perception of a lack of concern from the administration for the people stuck in New Orleans.

Seems reasonably logical to me. It'd be more logical to say "poor people," but that'd raise fewer eyebrows because very few people really care about poor people because there's the public perception that there will always be poor people and that having someone poorer than yourself helps justify your station in life. I mean, 50 Cent is obviously a better musician because he moves more units, and a better person than those in New Orleans because he improved his position in life at any cost.

Kanye was NOT the only person expressing the opinion he expressed. After Katrina, a whole barrage of dumbasses, and more than a few intelligent people (unlike Kanye) were expressing all kinds of opinions. The blame game was going on in full effect and everybody had their two cents. A lot of people choose to use facts and reasoning to express their opinions. My point is that Kanye choose to not be rational and instead just say things like a black family is looting and a white family is searching for a food, which fed already angry people with a reason to be even more irrationaly angry, when in fact the MOST PROBABLE reason for the captions is a coincedence seeing as how they came from TWO DIFFERENT SOURCES.

My point is that lots of people were expressing intelligent opinions about Katrina, and Kanye wasn't. The two captions wasn't the media portraying race in a certain way, it was a coincidence. The national guards weren't sent to NO to shoot black people. There is no proof that George Bush doesn't care about black people. Arguments about a lack of Government failure were articulated much greater by other people. Don't listen to some idiot singer who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Oh, and I can't stand Noam Chomsky. But, that's a whole different argument.

George Bush doesn't care about black people.

Seem OTM to me....

Stupid people believed that black people were looting and white people were only looking for food. People with sense realize that it isn't the case. Different people looked at the situation in different ways. It's wrong to generalize like that. But, the simple truth is, it wasn't intentionally done to make black people look like looters and white people look like they were simply finding food. The correct way to look at it would be to say "Hmmm, not important. Let's move on to things that actually matter".

...Another "damn, why did I read that whole thread?" moment. I don't get the compulsion to argue every conservative poster into the ground.

Yet you are doing it right now, though in a dumb way, since you aren't arguing my points. I'm not a conservative. I agree with conservatives and liberals on different issues, though.

A Republican comes along looking to get attention for his questionable political beliefs.

I'm not a Republican, and there's nothing wrong with stating my beliefs. Does it piss you off you that I don't just simply agree with everyone else here? In fact, I haven't given one fucking political belief that I hold. The only belief is that Kayne shouldn't be taken seriously with his comments because they were factually wrong and lacking basic reasoning. Based on that, I could be a tree hugging hippie or a neo-con. But, I'm not either.

He makes statements contradictory to the prevailing views.

Yes, that's what arguing is. You're a genius.

His statements are promptly refuted. He continues to rephrase the original assertions, adding in more conservative talking points ("blame game").

My points have not been refuted. Give me proof that George Bush doesn't care about black people. Give me proof that the National Guard was sent down to shoot black people. Give me proof that there was a conspiracy to show portray blacks in a bad lights, and whites in a good one. So far, no one has. Many people have given good reasons why there was a Government failure, but those are their reasons. They weren't Kanye's. His reasons were....well, he didn't have any reasons. He was just spouting idiotic rhetoric.

All reactionary viewpoints do not need to be addressed.

I think I understand the gist of what you are saying. If someone disagrees with you, just label them as a something that's unappealing without even knowing what the fuck you are talking about, but when it comes to their actual points, just don't acknowledge them. It's equivalent to hiding under your blanket. Thanks for the useless contribution, jackass.

And the Yahoo fiasco was just the most blatant example of the media's racist coverage of Katrina. A thousand people died, and the white-controlled media focused on a few fucking televisions that were lifted. Fuck that. And, while I'm on the subject, fuck 50 Cent.

I'd also recommend checking out nabisco's posts on ILE regarding intent and racism.

Link?

Any economic gains that blacks made during the Clinton years have been reversed (look it up)

I would also like a link to these reports.

BUT, I would like to say that it's crazy to think that The President should be looking out for the interest of a specific race. I think you should read up on the duties of the executive office. But, even though he isn't supposed to do that, I don't think he should. That would be kind of silly.

The problem with people like you, -- s>c>, is that you seem to buy into the concept of race and actually believe that there is something inherently different with people based on skin color. With your comments, you imply that all of black people are one entity and the whole of white people are another entity. That's simply not true. Racism sucks, but it doesn't help matters when you not only believe blacks are different than whites, but they have specific interests that are different from white's interests.

starting with this post:
I don't think the line is ever that clear between those two things, and I'm incredibly skeptical of the "conscious" and "intentionally" in that particular framing of it. (Plenty of people are actively-racist in ways that are more ignorant than consciously considered, and even segregation wasn't "intentionally" oppressive/hurtful.)

and going on down.

This, I believe, refers to the Louisiana governor's statement a few days after the storm that National Guard troops were sent to New Orleans and Louisiana to keep order, that "they have been given orders to shoot to kill, and I expect that they will." Restoring order is important, sure, but that last phrase seems a little bloodthirsty to me.

I buy into the concept of race? Race exists. I don't know you, and have no idea about your particular station in this world, but it's easy to look from a position of privilege and simply say that race doesn't exist. The particular race of any individual is largely irrelevant, but when you look at our nation (and even our world) on a macro, political level I think it's essential to acknowledge the role of race in society. Socialization based upon the United States 400 years of slavery, racism, and oppression is very real. For a public official such as Bush to ignore that dynamic is dereliction of duty. Willful stupidity = racism.

But if Kanye would've said that "Bush doesn't care about poor people," I'd be down with that as well. His circle of apathy is large and dangerous.

You can bring up slavery all you want. I don't disagree that racism exists and it's a horrible thing. But, the simple matter is, the argument that the Government had a racial agenda when it came to Katrina has absolutely no fucking legs to stand on.

I'm not a fan of Bush at all, but the race card shit annoys me to no end. Blow it out your ass.

Hahaha sure.

There are many criticisms that could be laid at FEMA, which I believe is just simply an ineffective group of people. A lot of people criticized Bush for cutting their funds, but they performed just as slowly and inadequatly 13 years ago during Hurricane Andrew. So, Bush could be criticized for the way he runs the federal government and the fact that he appoints dipshits.

But, the difference between Louisina and places like Florida, Alabama and Missippi is not the shitty federal response (which was seen in all instances) but the shitty local and state Government response in Louisiana, which was NOT seen in Florida, Alabama and Missippi. It has always been the rule that in crisis situations, the local and state Government are there for short-term, and the Federal is the calvary for the long term. There was nothing altered about how NO was handled in relation to past disaster, the only thing that was different was the scale of the disaster and the fact that there seemed to be unique incompetence on all levels of Government.

James, you don't necessarily have to bother reading the linked thread, cause I'll say the same thing here. Read the sentence I just quoted: who in the world ever claimed that the government had a "racial agenda" when it came to Katrina? Kanye didn't say that. He said that Bush (meaning "the Bush administration") didn't care. Most of what I was arguing against on that other thread is this bizarro idea that "racism" (a word Kanye, to my recollection, never used!) only consists of having active agendas to hurt or oppress people of other races. And this is total ahistorical bullshit: "racism" is a system of beliefs and assumptions and stereotypes and ideas that tend float their way through every culture, everywhere -- especially ours.

This idea that Kanye's comments were just "rheotoric" and not "reasoned" is absolutely insane: the guy said a couple dozen words! It wasn't a Times op-ed or a Pentagon policy paper or a PowerPoint presentation, and it came from a college-dropout musician, not a politician or journalist: of course it was rhetoric! So what? The thing that made that moment so interesting was precisely the fact that it wasn't incredibly precise; the guy stood there looking like a nervous schoolboy, visibly frustrated and emotional and venting. What's with this idea that nobody can speak about national issues apart from policy wonks and people with bullet points?

And most important: this talk about "total social integration" and race-ignorance is one of the least helpful ideas anyone has ever come up with, a way for people to bury the entire idea of race in the guise of seeming progressive. Race exists, race matters -- not just "racism," but race -- and one of the biggest impacts of Katrina was a sudden public uncovering of the ways in which race matters: after a few dozen hours, it became impossible for anyone to ignore that, huh, look at that, the people in New Orleans being affected by this are poor and mostly black. It also became impossible to ignore the ways in which casual assumptions and ideas about race and class played into people's responses to the whole thing, from the sensationalist "anarchy in the streets" looting-and-riot coverage that initially obscured the thousands and thousands of ordinary black people huddled up and waiting, to the rumors faked afterward about evacuees gang-raping people in Utah and spending their relief money on Cadillacs. What possible belief in "total social integration" can deny that perceptions of race and class -- namely, perceptions of poor black people who live in cities -- were at stake in every one of those things?

So anyway: for all I know Kanye has loads of stupid opinions and beliefs. I have no plans on seeking out his opinions on other national events; I have no plans to vote him into public office. But neither am I going to attack the guy for doing his nervous, emotional best to raise a couple issues that were troubling him, issues that were at stake in this whole event and issues I didn't mind seeing someone cut through the usual charitable everything-is-fine routine with. What all did he even say? That our troop commitments in Iraq have diminished our capacity to deal with domestic disasters? (That sounds pretty reasoned and logical to me!)

And then the part you're freaking over, the part where one guy expresses an opinion that the administration had been strangely indifferent to the suffering of a bunch of poor black people. Do I think the comment's "right?" Well, no; it was only seven words; it didn't get to the maybe-more-important issue of class, and the relationship of race to class, and all that other bullet-point break-it-down stuff you seem to be asking for. But it raised, in its own way, a legitimate frustration that the guy had, and a question that's worth investigating: didn't the administration's slow response maybe have a little something to do with the fact that the people suffering didn't have much social power? And didn't that have to do with race (and class)? If something similar had magically happened to the coast of Connecticut, might things have gone differently?

So for a person who's so hell-bent on "reason" and "logic," your response to the comment is baffling: you're essentially saying "no, he's irrational, race has nothing to do with anything, let's change the subject." And it seems to me that a reasonable, logical person who's in favor of "total social integration" would sit down and think hard about the question the guy is raising -- put aside the fact that it was a frustrated, ineloquent outburst, and think hard about the very real questions at the core of it.

and....

of course it was rhetoric!

Thank you.

And then the part you're freaking over, the part where one guy expresses an opinion that the administration had been strangely indifferent to the suffering of a bunch of poor black people. Do I think the comment's "right?" Well, no;

Thank you again.

Ok, on to the argument....

First, let me say again, that the Federal response was not slow compared to other similar disasters, including Andrew, which up until Katrina, was the most costly disaster.

The fact that people could not get out of New Orleons is, yes, a matter of economics and class. Of course, despite evacuation notices given by Federal, State and Local Government, if you were poor you would have a hard time getting out. But, in order for it to be race related, you have to connect this situation of class to race, which cannot be done. There is simply nothing that points that it was anything other than the fact anyone without a car or gas in their tank, black OR white, would have more trouble getting out of NO.

There are so many logical arguments that have to do with economic stature and beaucratic negligence, that race just seems frivolous. Besides, a lot of the initial failures were by regional officers, many who are black. The Mayor of NO, who delayed the evacuation because of his fear of legal ramifications, was black. It's silly to think that these people have an agenda against a race or DON'T CARE about black people. But, if you are speaking of the federal government, like I said earlier, their response was typical to this disaster when compared to disasters in the past.

I'm not trying to deny that the media and the government isn't affected by race. In fact, race motivation could be seen as people not wanting to show certain violent aspects of looters in New Orleons, because the violence of it might project a black image in a bad light. There were cases of this happening. But, like I said earlier, an intelligent person wouldn't say that people who doing certain things BECAUSE they are black or white or whatever. The media bombards us with all kinds of images and points of view, but it's up to us to take an intelligent view of it.

So, I don't think Kanye raised questions that are worth thinking about. But, when I did think about them, I realized they weren't really what was truly relevant. I don't mean to imply that I think he should have come off like a political expert. It was a good television, but like you agreed with earlier, it was rhetoric.

As far as the other people questioning my privelages, let me state again that I am not in a position of privelage and I have had to deal with the negative affects of racism. I'm sorry to dissapoint you guys.

Hahaha oh man, it's like this guy is living in an alternate universe. Tell me, James, are Squadron Supreme the heroes in your world or do you have the Avengers?

But, just to play ball, the fact that blacks were enslaved because they are black is racist. Slavery itself isn't racist. But it is immoral and disgusting. But, yes, if a black enslaves a black, but not because of his race, it isn't racist. It's not rocket science.

Why are you guys having such a hard time understanding this? If you want to argue why Katrina was racially motivated, do it. Because nobody has given any proof that it was racially motivated. If you're talking about race and class in general and it's effects on the media, government and society, maybe that should be a different thread.

Nabisco already validated my point that Kanye's statements were rhetoric. What exactly are we arguing?

I made a parallel to yr assertion that race couldn't be an important aspect of this event because N.O.'s mayor was black. And I'm telling you that by that logic, Africans selling fellow Africans into a racist slave system excuses said racist slave system from being racist.

Wait, so let me get this right: you're saying there was MORE violence and looting by blacks than the "anarchy" that was reported by the national media during the week Katrina hit? Where exactly did you come up with that cockamanie perception?

Did Kanye say this? I guess I missed it. I thought he said that George Bush didn't give a shit about black people. I'd say a lot of people have given you a lot of evidence to attest to the fact that that statement is demonstrably true (yes yes amongst many other groups of people as well.) That George Bush's individual response (hi I'm on vacation!) and the federal government's collective response (hi I'm led by Michael Brown!) didn't indicate that they cared a great deal about those effected by Katrina, a large portion of whom happen to be black, is an added bonus.

Well, then couldn't just as hypothetically have said that "race motivation could be seen as the media wanting to pretend 'anarchy' broke out among blacks in New Orleans, because the violence of it might project a black image in a bad light"? Doesn't that scenario seem closer to what actually happened? And if not, why not? Did you not notice that the national media was talking about looting and violence and rapes and murders nonstop that week? If avoiding discussing violence means protecting the black image, as you're implying, why wouldn't blowing it completely out of proportion mean the exact opposite?

Arf, James, I know this is going to sound really condescending, but how old are you? I realize that sounds really mean and arrogant, but I'd understand a lot more of the gaps in your argument if you were of the certain age I think you might be. (Just for instance: how in the world are "the context of Katrina" and "the context of the history of racism" different or separate things? I only live in one universe, and it's the universe in which both of those things exist, and maybe-just-maybe have something to do with one another. As for my agreeing that Kanye's statement was "rhetoric" -- umm, yeah? So? Are you sure you're clear on what the word "rhetoric" means? Why was his rhetorical style wrong or "bullshit" in this instance?)

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.

Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor.

There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?

Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage — lower poverty in married-couple families.

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.

Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work. In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive."

I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible — Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty — dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class."-excerpt from a Walter Williams column

I would strongly suggest looking up the definition of "rhetoric".

the comments section for the site that originally published the 50 cent story are great.

http://contactmusic.com/new/comments.nsf/viewcomments?open&restrictcategoryto=news__50%20CENT%20SLAMS%20KANYES%20BUSH%20IS%20RACIST%20COMMENT

the republicans who now feel compelled to go out and buy 50 cent cds are in for a big surprise.

These would be sweet rap group names.

Dan Perry OTM...Kanye basically, just what? said a simple sentence...it's not rhetoric. It's a sentence stating an opinion.

Next time I will take the time to write my own argument from scratch, knowing that I have articulate reponses like, "rote dipshit race bull" ready to make me rethink the worthiness of the argument and possibly modify it. What an incentive you have created and an out of place question mark to top it off?

(a) poor black people are only poor because they're lazy-ass unwed-mother welfare-dependent niggers, just like you kinda-think but don't want to sound racist by saying out loud,

You caught me red-handed! Though we'll meet again, killer of my brother Klansmen! *shakes fist*

http://strawman.ytmnd.com/

(b) but don't worry, the good ones who get married aren't poor, so it all works out

Usually nowhere near as poor as the ones who have children out of wedlock, no. That's kind of what the article pointed out.

(c) don't worry, you don't have to feel guilty or think of ways to help make this situation better, cause it turns out government makes it worse, and the most helpful thing you can possibly do is to be an asshole about the whole thing.

Although I don't think "guilt" should be the motivation for helping black people in general, I think help is good. Government usually sucks at it though.

In what way is a question-ending question mark -- to wit: " . . . if you're going to blast ILX with rote dipshit race bull could you at least have the decency to write it yourself, instead of pulling someone else's dipshittery off the web? -- "out of place?"

-- gear (speed.to.roa...), November 4th, 2005. (later)

Most OTM comment of this thread.

More specifically:

(a) As noted, "could you at least..." is a question.
(b) If you want us to read someone else's article, post a link; don't just copy and paste as if you're talking.
(c) Stop leaping to touchy "he called me a racist" distinctions. I didn't say a word about you (you didn't write the article), and I didn't even say anything about the authors of the article -- I said that the article itself winds up telling Americans what many of them would like to hear.

Thanks for a great demonstration of the how "the racist card" works, though -- such a handy way to write off people who disagree with you as shrieky hysterical racist-callers, and effectively distract all attention from the points they were making!

As to those actual points, I'll repeat: yes, the article claims a correlation between black families and higher economic success. Anyone with any understanding of statistics would know that there's a difference between "correlation" and "causation" -- something the authors here manipulatively skip over. (One reason to link stuff instead of just pasting it: so we'd know who those authors were, and where their statistics come from.) The article pretends what lots of people would like to believe -- that there are "good black people," who are doing fine, and "bad black people," who are doing poorly because of their own behavior. But nothing at all about that correlation actually suggests that. Think about this for even one second, and it displays itself as absolutely comical: the article draws this totally-fucked conclusion that if black people were just polite and had families, they'd have higher incomes. Wouldn't you think it'd occur to them that the correlation might also go the other way -- that people living in environments of poverty often see their family structures destroyed? Isn't this the same thing that happens with poor white people? Don't these two things relate to one another in kind of a complex cycle, a cycle that has a long history and a really complex nature, a cycle way more complex than "all they have to do is get married and have jobs, and then it'll be fine?"

This has been a tactic in the U.S. for ages. First, someone pretends (as James would likely do) that there are only two possible causes of black poverty -- either it's white people's fault for being racist and oppressive, or it's black people's fault for having a "culture of dependency" or a "culture of poverty." (Exactly the cliche that article is trying so hard to uphold.) This is essentially bizarro: is it maybe-just-maybe more complex than that? Is it possible that there are bad things in black culture that are born out of situations that were born out of racism -- a whole complex mish-mash of responsibility on all sides that in the end amounts to, you know, our culture and our situation as a country?

So yes, that's what I said: this article takes a flat-out ridiculous misleading statistical "conclusion" and then uses it to tell Americans exactly what will make them feel better -- that some black people do poorly because they "choose" to do poorly, that the "good black people" do fine, and therefore people's success is all in their own hands and we don't need to worry about it anymore. This is such over-simplistic idiocy that it makes me almost ill.

OTM...I'm one lucky motherfucker, for real.

I didn't say a word about you (you didn't write the article), and I didn't even say anything about the authors of the article -- I said that the article itself winds up telling Americans what many of them would like to hear.

But...

"(a) poor black people are only poor because they're lazy-ass unwed-mother welfare-dependent niggers, just like you kinda-think but don't want to sound racist by saying out loud,"

Who is "you" aimed at? If by "you" you meant "some Americans" I hope you see how it sounds incredibly ambiguous and aimed at a singular person (who is never identified).

(One reason to link stuff instead of just pasting it: so we'd know who those authors were, and where their statistics come from.)

I said the author at the end of it was Willaims and he lists the study in the article.

tell Americans exactly what many of them would like to hear: that (a) poor black people are only poor because they're lazy-ass unwed-mother welfare-dependent niggers, just like you kinda-think but don't want to sound racist by saying out loud

I'm taking it as pretty clear that the "you" refers to the "many Americans" being told what they want to hear. Sort of like in the following sentence: "I told him what he wanted to hear: 'You're good at your job.'"

This argument did kind of veer off into weird terrain, and I'll admit that I didn't do a good job of keeping it leveled at exactly where I stood. I shouldn't have even brought the whole idea of racial integration and "race as a concept" because it can be easily twisted, and it kinda brought the wrath of smart asses with nothing of value to add to the debate.

I'm getting certain people saying that Kanye's gist was that George Bush doesn't care about black people because of the response to Katrina, and other people saying that's it just a general statement that he, well, doesn't care about black people and it doesn't necessarily have to do with Katrina at all. So, based on that, I don't see how Bush showed a lack of caring about black people based on Katrina. I've brought up faults with the response to Katrina such as Blanco's refusal of Red Cross Aid and Nagin's delayed response to evacuation. Initial decisions made by local and state Government (who, in disaster situations, as I said earlier, are the ones who are supposed to deal with the short term, with FEMA acting as long term calvary) officials were key to this whole fiasco, and they have nothing to do with George Bush at all, or his lack of caring for black people. The fact that FEMA is a medicore group of people and run by dipshits has nothing to do with George Bush's lack of caring for black people.

I think Kanye generally believed that this situation was racially motivated and indicative of the powers that be lack of caring for black people (though he didn't bring up FEMA, or Nagin or Blanco; only Bush). I think, in this instance, he was wrong. Not only wrong, but his message was irrationally conveyed. Though I think a lot of you have made some good points, I don't see anywhere where you have led me to believe otherwise.

This is my last word on the whole shabang.

i respect 50 cent as a theologian

Theologians, they don't know nothin'

fifty cent is the greatest social critic of the 21st century

Kanye is not stupid, neither is he dumb.

Producers: Please stop using that snare from the JV-1080 Hip Hop expansion board.

From AP:

50 Cent Rescinds Diss of Kanye West

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK — Stepping back from statements he made in 2005, 50 Cent recently apologized for a simmering racial feud he started with fellow rapper Kanye West.

"I now realize that I am not responsible for Kanye West's success." 50 told his mother. "That would be Outkast."

Explaining his recent change of heart, 50 Cent revealed that he needs time to focus on more pressing feuds. "Tupac and Biggie fans were looking for someone who hadn't died, and I was the first thing that came along. I feel that Biggie and Tupac only had success because of me."

D+++++

I thought this was gonna be bumped cuz of the whole "50 Cent Bets Career, 'If Kanye Sells More Records... I Won't Put Out Any More Solo Albums'" thing

:(

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5js70Pg-YwaXHm1MNMbAsMo1B8UPg

Kanye Leads 50 Cent in CD Sales Battle
By NEKESA MUMBI MOODY – 27 minutes ago

NEW YORK (AP) — 50 Cent may be getting hip-hop's equivalent of a gold watch next week.

Early reports have Kanye West beating 50 in their much-hyped battle of album sales: West's "Graduation" is on pace to sell about 575,000 to 700,000 its first week out, while 50 Cent's "Curtis" is on track to do 550,000, according to Billboard magazine. As of day one, Kanye had sold 437,000 copies to 50's 310,000, according to Nielsen Soundscan.

diamond-encrusted gold watch?

lol at both being outsold by KT fucking Tunstall in the UK

I had no idea 50 Cent said that Hurricane Katrina was an act of God until this thread was brought back up! Dimmer than dim!

is 50 really going to stop making solo records now?

I'm sorry. I meant to say the New Orleans disaster, not Hurricane Katrina. Yes, Katrina caused it, but many factors outside "God" could have made it less of a disaster.

Blueski, if I can castrate 50 Cent and get away with it, he probably will.

I think he took back the whole "I'll retire if Kanye outsells me" thing shortly after he said it, but media outlets keep bringing it up. He's been pretty upfront in the past year or two about the fact that he's only contracted to do 2 more albums, and he's going to do one more new LP in 2008 and then a greatest hits record. So I don't think he'll stop after Curtis but will stop not long after that.

I'm pretty sure that he'll outsell Kanye worldwide as well, if not in the UK and US.

please to make bar graph demonstrating the European market's reaction or lack thereof to Kanye's Euro-pandering when solid sales figures start rolling in.

Will do boss.

'Dear Europe, give a black man a chance, love Kanye'

Perhaps Kanye should be the next celeb to do those Asda adverts? Shove him in the cheese counter, have him banter with the shoppers.